Christopher Hitchens, R.I.P.

[billl]

I'm not sure if "R.I.P." has some religious connotations, and I'm not sure if someone might get the hair standing on the back of their neck at the mere sight of his name, or even if I'm being offensive by casually wondering about these things. My initial instinct was to not even mention this, because religion and politics could so easily erupt into something ugly (or even forbidden by Forum rules). However, until just today, Christopher Hitchens was the writer I looked forward to reading more than any other living writer.

[mortalterror]

Dang, I liked him. A thoughtful and thought provoking provocative writer.

[Darcy88]

Though I disagree with some of the stances he took in his later years I gotta give it up to the Hitch. The man wrote a book against Mother Theresa. One of a kind.

[Jack of Hearts]

We can all rest easier knowing he's in God's hands now.

Uh, rest in peace.







J

[cyberbob]

R.I.P.

I loved watching his debates, speeches, and interviews on youtube, though I think the other new atheists wrote better books on the subject. His non-atheist books were good. I liked Letters To a Young Contrarian.

[mal4mac]

From Vanity Fair: “Christopher Hitchens—the incomparable critic, masterful rhetorician, fiery wit, and fearless bon vivant—died today at the age of 62."

I think that sentence captures his qualities very well.

RIP certainly has religious connotations. It's derived from the burial service of the Catholic Church, and comes from the sentence "May his soul and the souls of all the departed faithful by God's mercy rest in peace."

Hitchens made powerful use of irony, so RIP is a fine, ironic heading for this thread. Only his words live on, and I'm sure he wouldn't like them to rest in peace in some dusty archive, but would like them to spark of some fiery debates.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I never read any of his stuff, but did see him interviewed several times and always enjoyed it. I love a good ****-disturber. He was on 60 Minutes (or a similar news show) not too long ago, and he seemed at peace with his impending death--he'd been battling cancer for some time. Even if he died a bit earlier than most, I think he lived more than most do or could in a hundred years.

And his anti-Mother Theresa stance was just unbelievably awesome. :nod:

[AuntShecky]

In this world so lacking in honest discourse and true wit, then, yes, he will
be missed.

[Climacus]

He was my favourite of the new fire-breathing atheists. Good speaker. Entertaining if nothing else.

[Climacus]

I'm not sure if "R.I.P." has some religious connotations
Well, it does imply some sort of immortality or living-on. For there's nothing in oblivion - neither rest nor unrest.

[Varenne Rodin]

I adore him. He inspired a lot of people. I'm glad he was in the world.

Thanks for posting this thread, Billl.

[Desolation]

Well, it does imply some sort of immortality or living-on. For there's nothing in oblivion - neither rest nor unrest.

But, couldn't oblivion be considered real rest? Shutting off forever, and not being propelled into an eternal afterlife seems very relaxing to me.

[Climacus]

Shutting off forever, and not being propelled into an eternal afterlife seems very relaxing to me.
For whom would it be relaxing? Existents only can relax.

[Varenne Rodin]

I don't know if it's relaxing or not. I'm guessing it will be the way it was before we were born. I'm perfectly comfortable with that because I'm enjoying my time now.

[Sancho]

I'll miss his voice.

[Ecurb]

Here's Christopher Buckley's obituary, from The New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/postscript-christopher-hitchens.html

[KCurtis]

And his anti-Mother Theresa stance was just unbelievably awesome. :nod:

Why? I am not familiar with this, however I don't understand how someone could be anti-Mother Theresa. BTW, I am an athiest.

[Climacus]

Why? I am not familiar with this, however I don't understand how someone could be anti-Mother Theresa. BTW, I am an athiest.
He apparently argued (I haven't read the stuff personally) that Mother Theresa worshipped poverty and suffering. Quoth Hitch: "The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it’s a shame there is no hell for your b*tch to go to."

[Darcy88]

"She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. And she was a friend to the worst of the rich, taking misappropriated money from the atrocious Duvalier family in Haiti (whose rule she praised in return) and from Charles Keating of the Lincoln Savings and Loan. Where did that money, and all the other donations, go? The primitive hospice in Calcutta was as run down when she died as it always had been—she preferred California clinics when she got sick herself—and her order always refused to publish any audit. But we have her own claim that she opened 500 convents in more than a hundred countries, all bearing the name of her own order. Excuse me, but this is modesty and humility?"

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html

[Ecurb]

Hitchens, like Orwell, felt that "all saints should be considered guilty until proven innocent." (From Orwell's "Reflections on Ghandi").

Here's a link to review of Hitchens book on Mother T.:


http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1996/jul/11/the-shadow-saint/


Here's a letter to the editors battle between Hitchens and Mother T.'s defender:

http://www.nybooks.com/search/?q=Mother+Teresa+Hitchens&origin=magazine

[mal4mac]

"She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction."

This the key point, and he makes it very well in the excellent interview with Paxman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t4VhQX5Ckk

"Mockery of religion is one of the most essential things ... to demystify supposedly 'holy text dictated by god' and show that they are man made and ... their internal inconsistencies and absurdities. One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority..."

[Ecurb]

Hitchens (I'm guessing) attacked Mother Teresa for the same reason Orwell attacked Gandhi. They both revelled in their skill at attacking things, so they picked seemingly difficult targets. Any hack writer can find something to despise about Stalin; it takes someone of Hitchens' talents to write entire books critical of a saint. (Although I admire Hitchens' talents, I think he's off base in his critique of Mother Teresa. Because he doesn't buy into her goals or worldview, he sees no value in what she did. He could see value in HELPING the poor physically -- with money, food, medical care. But he can't see the spiritual value of simply loving them.)

[Climacus]

Hitchens was definitely the most likable of the neo-atheists. He was sharp and he was funny.

[KCurtis]

He apparently argued (I haven't read the stuff personally) that Mother Theresa worshipped poverty and suffering. Quoth Hitch: "The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it’s a shame there is no hell for your b*tch to go to."

Yes, I discussed this with my husband, who is familiar with it, last night and read some interviews about it. It is disturbing. While I agree with much of what Hitchens said, I never gave Mother Teresa's actions much thought. I just saw her as most people do. Hitchens admits he is hostile toward religion- I am not, although I agree with a lot of what he wrote and said.

[tonywalt]

I did not always agree with him, but he was the best living non-fiction writer and if you really want to learn to speak and write in a coherent and attractive manner you should take a look at him.

There is a cool youtube tribute (probably more than one) where many people raise a glass to him. It's the way he would have wanted it.

[mal4mac]

Hitchens (I'm guessing) attacked Mother Teresa for the same reason Orwell attacked Gandhi. They both revelled in their skill at attacking things, so they picked seemingly difficult targets. Any hack writer can find something to despise about Stalin; it takes someone of Hitchens' talents to write entire books critical of a saint. (Although I admire Hitchens' talents, I think he's off base in his critique of Mother Teresa. Because he doesn't buy into her goals or worldview, he sees no value in what she did. He could see value in HELPING the poor physically -- with money, food, medical care. But he can't see the spiritual value of simply loving them.)

Why guess when I gave you the utube link as to why he attacked Mother Teresa, and another poster gave you a direct quote? It had nothing to do with "picking difficult targets" and it was certainly not about him "not seeing the value of love". In fact, I think this is an awful slur on this great man. He often paid loving tributes to people. His argument is that Mother Teresa's warped metaphysics led to people suffering , and I think it's a telling argument.

[cyberbob]

Yeah what Ecurb said is pure bull**** LOL.

Hitchens literally thought that Mother Teresa was a bad person, not that her efforts were well-meaning but ineffective and he certainly didn't just attack her for sport.

[JuniperWoolf]

Hitchens (I'm guessing) attacked Mother Teresa for the same reason Orwell attacked Gandhi. They both revelled in their skill at attacking things, so they picked seemingly difficult targets. Any hack writer can find something to despise about Stalin; it takes someone of Hitchens' talents to write entire books critical of a saint. (Although I admire Hitchens' talents, I think he's off base in his critique of Mother Teresa. Because he doesn't buy into her goals or worldview, he sees no value in what she did. He could see value in HELPING the poor physically -- with money, food, medical care. But he can't see the spiritual value of simply loving them.)

Mother Teresa was a proponent of suffering. She wanted people to suffer, because she believed that it would improve them spiritually. She didn't want to lessen human suffering, she wanted suffering to permeate the entire world. This is 100% true, look it up.

Also, Gandhi hated black people.


"Mockery of religion is one of the most essential things ... to demystify supposedly 'holy text dictated by god' and show that they are man made and ... their internal inconsistencies and absurdities. One of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority."

Amen.

[KCurtis]

Also, Gandhi hated black people.


What is your evidence for this?

[OrphanPip]

What is your evidence for this?

Gandhi's efforts to protect the rights of Indians in South Africa also involved support for the segregation of blacks. A lot of his writings from that period are explicitly racist, but it's hard to say how Gandhi's attitudes on race changed over his lifetime.

[KCurtis]

Gandhi's efforts to protect the rights of Indians in South Africa also involved support for the segregation of blacks. A lot of his writings from that period are explicitly racist, but it's hard to say how Gandhi's attitudes on race changed over his lifetime.
You jogged my memory- I think that is mentioned in Mandela's book "Long Walk to Freedom", I will need to look it up to make sure. Great auto-biography.
I AM GLAD I HAD TIME TO EDIT THIS!! WHAT I POSTED JUST ABOVE THIS LINE IS NOT TRUE. I looked up Gandhi in Mandela's autobiography, and Mandela has nothing but praise for him. Gandhi influenced him very much.

[cafolini]

Gandhi's efforts to protect the rights of Indians in South Africa also involved support for the segregation of blacks. A lot of his writings from that period are explicitly racist, but it's hard to say how Gandhi's attitudes on race changed over his lifetime.

Ghandi was into civil disobedience as prescribed by Thoreau. He never supported segregation of blacks, and was often used as an example by blacks thermselves, who in many instances were also civil disobedients or at least approached that subject verbally.

[Alexander III]

Ghandi was into civil disobedience as prescribed by Thoreau. He never supported segregation of blacks, and was often used as an example by blacks thermselves, who in many instances were also civil disobedients or at least approached that subject verbally.

I agree with Califoni, Marthin Luther King himself was inspired greatly by Ghandi.

For people who love evidence so much, you have little qualms of saying rather radical things such as "Ghandi was racist against blacks" without any proper evidence.

Of course there are many reasons to criticize Ghandi. For example like Tolstoy he saw sex as wrong, and taught chastity was the true way to enlightenment.

He also supported radical ideas such as, if you as a person are not willing to die for "freedom" you are a weak and morally deficient person.

I criticize that, for people should not be seen as morally deficient simply because they lack courage.

[KCurtis]

Gandhi's efforts to protect the rights of Indians in South Africa also involved support for the segregation of blacks. A lot of his writings from that period are explicitly racist, but it's hard to say how Gandhi's attitudes on race changed over his lifetime.

Where is the evidence? What writings? You've got to back up your statement, because I read Mandela's view of Gandhi in his autobiography- he was greatly influenced by Gandhi. Is there something he didn't know? I doubt it, Mandela is a very smart man.

[KCurtis]

[/QUOTE]Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
Also, Gandhi hated black people.
[/QUOTE]

Where is the evidence for this? This is an opinion you have, for some reason- you need to back it up.

[Alexander III]

Irony.

[OrphanPip]

Where is the evidence? What writings? You've got to back up your statement, because I read Mandela's view of Gandhi in his autobiography- he was greatly influenced by Gandhi. Is there something he didn't know? I doubt it, Mandela is a very smart man.

Honestly, this is all well documented. I didn't say Gandhi was a racist, I said that in his early campaigning in South Africa, he deployed racist language in his efforts to protect Indian rights, including reinforcing the inferiority of blacks with respect to not only whites but also Indians. This is largely a product of identity politics, Gandhi was looking out for Indians above all, and the nature of segregationist policies in reinforcing cross-identity tensions.

You don't even have to go farther than the basic wiki article to get the references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Accusations_of_racism

[cafolini]

Honestly, this is all well documented. I didn't say Gandhi was a racist, I said that in his early campaigning in South Africa, he deployed racist language in his efforts to protect Indian rights, including reinforcing the inferiority of blacks with respect to not only whites but also Indians. This is largely a product of identity politics, Gandhi was looking out for Indians above all, and the nature of segregationist policies in reinforcing cross-identity tensions.

You don't even have to go farther than the basic wiki article to get the references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Accusations_of_racism

Very informative OrphanPip. I didn't know and would have never guessed it. But obviously you take was correct. So the young Ghandi was not so much of a pacifist as he was a nationalist. Thanks so much for this information.

[Alexander III]

Honestly, this is all well documented. I didn't say Gandhi was a racist, I said that in his early campaigning in South Africa, he deployed racist language in his efforts to protect Indian rights, including reinforcing the inferiority of blacks with respect to not only whites but also Indians. This is largely a product of identity politics, Gandhi was looking out for Indians above all, and the nature of segregationist policies in reinforcing cross-identity tensions.

You don't even have to go farther than the basic wiki article to get the references.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Accusations_of_racism

After having been in south Africa, I dont blame him, but there is a difference. He was criticizing a certain group not "black people in general".

Personally, and especially at the time, much of what he says is true, I have seen the south African Gehtos and the lack of humanity in them , and it does make you think and feel disgust towards these people.

But he knew like I know that they are not like that because they are black, they are like that because of the conditions in which they were raised. had they been raised in a wealthy community they would have turned out exactly like their wealthy white counterparts.

Take American red necks. Is one racist because one condems red-necks? Or is one critizsing a certain group based on their unescapable conditions of life rather than their race.

If you read his mature writings the thought of calling him racist would be laughable. But instead you seem to have preferred wikipedia. Wikipedia if fine if talking about generic, but coming out with such a strong statement as "Ghandi hated black people" from only having read wikipedia is less than agreeable.

Ghandi despised British imperialists and German Nazist and Kaffir warmongers. He objected to these cultures of warmongering and violence and with little respect for the sanctity of human life ( which is still unfortunately present amongst the Kaffirs in south affrica nowadays). He had only love for the individual German, Englishman or Kaffir.

This haste in criticism of a figure, simply because he was a man of religion is no better than a Christian or Islamic condemning good men simple because they do not believe in their faith. Bigotism is bigotism.

[cafolini]

After having been in south Africa, I dont blame him, but there is a difference. He was criticizing a certain group not "black people in general".

Personally, and especially at the time, much of what he says is true, I have seen the south African Gehtos and the lack of humanity in them , and it does make you think and feel disgust towards these people.

But he knew like I know that they are not like that because they are black, they are like that because of the conditions in which they were raised. had they been raised in a wealthy community they would have turned out exactly like their wealthy white counterparts.

Take American red necks. Is one racist because one condems red-necks? Or is one critizsing a certain group based on their unescapable conditions of life rather than their race.

If you read his mature writings the thought of calling him racist would be laughable. But instead you seem to have preferred wikipedia. Wikipedia if fine if talking about generic, but coming out with such a strong statement as "Ghandi hated black people" from only having read wikipedia is less than agreeable.

Ghandi despised British imperialists and German Nazist and Kaffir warmongers. He objected to these cultures of warmongering and violence and with little respect for the sanctity of human life ( which is still unfortunately present amongst the Kaffirs in south affrica nowadays). He had only love for the individual German, Englishman or Kaffir.

This haste in criticism of a figure, simply because he was a man of religion is no better than a Christian or Islamic condemning good men simple because they do not believe in their faith. Bigotism is bigotism.

Come on Alexander. It is obvious that he was generalizing and taking a racist side like the rest of the white So. Africans. Later on he changed, as OrphanPip stated. The Mandela that praised him is the old man. Obviously.

[JuniperWoolf]

I didn't say Gandhi was a racist

*raises hand* Yeah, that was me. Sorry, he was. On the record Gandhi has said the following (and remember folks, "kaffir" is a racial slur for "black people living in South Africa"):

“A Kaffir is to be taxed because he does not work enough: an Indian is to be taxed because he works too much.” ~ Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. III, p. 337

“Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” ~ CWMG, Vol. II, p. 74

“Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension. Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.” ~ CWMG, Vol. I, pp. 244-245

Regarding the Hindu Theological Seminary: “I only wish that such institutions will crop up all over India and be the means of preserving the Aryan religion in its purity.” ~ CWMG, Vol. IV, p. 93

His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” He also said, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized - the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” ~ CWMGGandhi, Vol. VIII, pp. 135-136

Concerning South Africa's White League fears of mass Asiatic immigration: “We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.” ~ CWMG, Vol. I, p. 105

“The petition dwells upon ‘the co-mingling of the coloured and white races’. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing, which the Indian cherishes, more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all?” ~ The Indian Opinion, December 24, 1903

So, there's that. Our modern culture is far too PC but there's no denying that Gandhi was racist. Was he racist until his death? Maybe not, but that's not the point, is it?

Here's the point - hero worship is having blind faith in another human being and that causes people to act out of ignorance. Check out the foaming-at-the-mouth responses when you tag on an afterthought as impersonal as "Gandhi hated black people." You didn't know Gandhi, you weren't even alive when he was and it doesn't seem like you know much about him, so why are you getting so offended? People do love their sacred cows, don't they? I'm sorry, but perfect people don't exist. Gandhi was a human. You don't see people get unruly when you make a comment like "Bob hated black people before he got to know them" or "Jack wrote over a dozen overtly racist articles in his younger years," even though Gandhi is just as unworthy of blind faith as Bob and Jack (and all humans). While I'm on the subject, Gandhi also really liked to hump and had a thing about human faeces, which is fine but not exactly what one pictures when they imagine saintly, infallable Gandhi. Does enjoying some anal play and hating black people when it was the norm mean that Gandhi was a bad person? Hell no, he was a very good person, but that's "person" and not "demigod." Blind hero worship is the reason why Mother Teresa got away with commiting charity fraud and making deals with war criminals, and yet is still considered a "saint" by people who don't know the first thing about her.

This thread, and the opinions posted herein, are fantastic examples of the issues that Hitchens wrote about.

[Alexander III]

Look, Ghandi was somewhat racist in his youth before he became The Ghandi we all know. But you cannot say Gahndi is racist.

Following that logic we could say Hitler is not racist, because prior to going to wwI he was not racist, or at least there were no indications whatsoever of his being racist. But Hitler the 20 year old, is not Hitler the man. Gahndi the 20 year old is not Gahndi the man.

Tolstoy in his early 20's was a soldier with no literary ambitions. If I were to say you remind me of Tolstoy would your first reaction be, " is it because I am a drunkard and a soldier with no literary ambitions?'

Lets end it with the semantics game. Gahndi in his youth had the views of his times. Then as he matured he formed his own views. And that is The Gahndi we remember.

And like I said in a previous post, This is not hero worship of Gahndi, as there are many points on which he may actually be fairly criticized. Racism is just not one of them.

Any person who has read gahndi's actual writings knows that. But then again reading something to get an informed opinion is much harder than taking a dozen quotes out of context and making all assumptions from there.

Also I was not aware Kaffir was a slur, I always assumed it was just the ethnic group name. I just google it and found out it was an Arab term which means "non-arabic" and was used as a racial term for all black people. My bad then on that.

Also orphanpip, sorry I confused you with Juniper.

[Alexander III]

Here's the point - hero worship is having blind faith in another human being and that causes people to act out of ignorance. Check out the foaming-at-the-mouth responses when you tag on an afterthought as impersonal as "Gandhi hated black people." You didn't know Gandhi, you weren't even alive when he was and it doesn't seem like you know much about him, so why are you getting so offended? People do love their sacred cows, don't they? I'm sorry, but perfect people don't exist. Gandhi was a human. You don't see people get unruly when you make a comment like "Bob hated black people before he got to know them" or "Jack wrote over a dozen overtly racist articles in his younger years," even though Gandhi is just as unworthy of blind faith as Bob and Jack (and all humans). While I'm on the subject, Gandhi also really liked to hump and had a thing about human faeces, which is fine but not exactly what one pictures when they imagine saintly, infallable Gandhi. Does enjoying some anal play and hating black people when it was the norm mean that Gandhi was a bad person? Hell no, he was a very good person, but that's "person" and not "demigod." Blind hero worship is the reason why Mother Teresa got away with commiting charity fraud and making deals with war criminals, and yet is still considered a "saint" by people who don't know the first thing about her.



Have you ever read a book written by gahndi, have you ever read a biography about his life? If you have, ignore the next paragraph, if you have not keep reading.

As you have not, you do see the hypocrisy of your standpoint. You condemn people for hero-worship when in truth they know little about said person and are just following mass opinion. This is fair. This behavior should be critizsed.
Buut then you do the exact same thing, anti-hero worship. You criticizes out of ignorance simply to be anti. Just like another man would praise of of ignorance just to be pro.

[Alexander III]

The simple fact that Martin Luther King and nelson Mandela (both black men if I recall), both men actually read Gahndi's works unlike many of the people speaking in this thread, and both admired him greatly and found inspiration from him. So surely this speaks for itself.

[OrphanPip]

This haste in criticism of a figure, simply because he was a man of religion is no better than a Christian or Islamic condemning good men simple because they do not believe in their faith. Bigotism is bigotism.

No one mentioned Gandhi's religion, I'm confused by why you would even mention it.

And as to your comments in the rest of the post, Gandhi died before most of the deconstruction of racial essentialist rhetoric become broadly discredited. He wrote most of his statements when these ideas were status quo, it would be quite exceptional if Gandhi had an understanding of the nuances of racial politics that you suggest he had, but it's unlikely. More likely is that he accepted most of the racist pseudo-science of the late 19th and early 20th century, and that he probably believed a good deal of what he wrote. He was also likely not above a good deal of politicking and willing to throw the black population under the bus if it meant protecting Indian rights.

Gandhi's mature writings never address the issue of race in any substantial measure, so we can't really say one way or another what his ideas on the subject were in later life.


The simple fact that Martin Luther King and nelson Mandela (both black men if I recall), both men actually read Gahndi's works unlike many of the people speaking in this thread, and both admired him greatly and found inspiration from him. So surely this speaks for itself.

But that doesn't really discredit the point made by Jun. Mandela and King drew inspiration from the non-violent resistance pioneered by Gandhi in the 20s-40s. Being a racist doesn't preclude you from inspiring an effective method of political resistance.

Mandela more closely reflects the legacy of Nehru anyway, who melded Gandhi's ideals with modern democratic socialist and liberal politics. And Nehru's management of the establishment of Indian independence reflects Mandela's policies after the fall of the NP.

[Alexander III]

Gandhi's mature writings never address the issue of race in any substantial measure, so we can't really say one way or another what his ideas on the subject were in later life.

They address the individual and his opinions are clear on that. I will get some quotes and post them here later.

[KCurtis]

Thankyou Juniperwolf and Orphanpip for your evidence and knowledge.
I think Nelson Mandela was able to forgive the past and praise the Gandhi that he valued. This is typical of Mandela, as we saw after he was released from prison, became president, and insisted that people forgive for past atrocities. It just confirms my belief that Mandela is a great man.
Ofcourse, he is not without serious flaws- as Juniperwolf so eloquently stated- blind hero worship does not belong anywhere.

[cafolini]

*raises hand* Yeah, that was me. Sorry, he was. On the record Gandhi has said the following (and remember folks, "kaffir" is a racial slur for "black people living in South Africa"):

“A Kaffir is to be taxed because he does not work enough: an Indian is to be taxed because he works too much.” ~ Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. III, p. 337

“Ours is one continued struggle against degradation sought to be inflicted upon us by the European, who desire to degrade us to the level of the raw Kaffir, whose occupation is hunting and whose sole ambition is to collect a certain number of cattle to buy a wife with, and then pass his life in indolence and nakedness.” ~ CWMG, Vol. II, p. 74

“Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs of the town, passes my comprehension. Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen.” ~ CWMG, Vol. I, pp. 244-245

Regarding the Hindu Theological Seminary: “I only wish that such institutions will crop up all over India and be the means of preserving the Aryan religion in its purity.” ~ CWMG, Vol. IV, p. 93

His description of black inmates: “Only a degree removed from the animal.” He also said, “Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized - the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live almost like animals.” ~ CWMGGandhi, Vol. VIII, pp. 135-136

Concerning South Africa's White League fears of mass Asiatic immigration: “We believe as much in the purity of race as we think they do, only we believe that they would best serve these interests, which are as dear to us as to them, by advocating the purity of all races, and not one alone. We believe also that the white race of South Africa should be the predominating race.” ~ CWMG, Vol. I, p. 105

“The petition dwells upon ‘the co-mingling of the coloured and white races’. May we inform the members of the conference that, so far as the British Indians are concerned, such a thing is practically unknown? If there is one thing, which the Indian cherishes, more than any other, it is the purity of type. Why bring such a question into the controversy at all?” ~ The Indian Opinion, December 24, 1903

So, there's that. Our modern culture is far too PC but there's no denying that Gandhi was racist. Was he racist until his death? Maybe not, but that's not the point, is it?

Here's the point - hero worship is having blind faith in another human being and that causes people to act out of ignorance. Check out the foaming-at-the-mouth responses when you tag on an afterthought as impersonal as "Gandhi hated black people." You didn't know Gandhi, you weren't even alive when he was and it doesn't seem like you know much about him, so why are you getting so offended? People do love their sacred cows, don't they? I'm sorry, but perfect people don't exist. Gandhi was a human. You don't see people get unruly when you make a comment like "Bob hated black people before he got to know them" or "Jack wrote over a dozen overtly racist articles in his younger years," even though Gandhi is just as unworthy of blind faith as Bob and Jack (and all humans). While I'm on the subject, Gandhi also really liked to hump and had a thing about human faeces, which is fine but not exactly what one pictures when they imagine saintly, infallable Gandhi. Does enjoying some anal play and hating black people when it was the norm mean that Gandhi was a bad person? Hell no, he was a very good person, but that's "person" and not "demigod." Blind hero worship is the reason why Mother Teresa got away with commiting charity fraud and making deals with war criminals, and yet is still considered a "saint" by people who don't know the first thing about her.

This thread, and the opinions posted herein, are fantastic examples of the issues that Hitchens wrote about.

Thanks for the info, JunniperWolf.

[mal4mac]

Hitchens also makes some telling points against some of Mandela's actions, or non-actions. These are easily found in a Google search. Here's one:

"By his silence about what is happening in Zimbabwe, Mandela is making himself complicit in the pillage and murder of an entire nation, as well as the strangulation of an important African democracy... It is the silence of Mandela, much more than anything else, that bruises the soul. It appears to make a mockery of all the brave talk about international standards for human rights, about the need for internationalist solidarity and the brotherhood of man, and all that. There is perhaps only one person in the world who symbolizes that spirit, and he has chosen to betray it."

[Alexander III]

Hitchens also makes some telling points against some of Mandela's actions, or non-actions. These are easily found in a Google search. Here's one:

"By his silence about what is happening in Zimbabwe, Mandela is making himself complicit in the pillage and murder of an entire nation, as well as the strangulation of an important African democracy... It is the silence of Mandela, much more than anything else, that bruises the soul. It appears to make a mockery of all the brave talk about international standards for human rights, about the need for internationalist solidarity and the brotherhood of man, and all that. There is perhaps only one person in the world who symbolizes that spirit, and he has chosen to betray it."

My god, Gahndi, Mandela ect. are not gods, they are men. If we hold them up to the standards of gods yes they fall short. But if we hold them to the standards of normal men such as me or anyone else on this forum....well, needless to say we can't talk much. But yes they are men and thus not perfect. Men have flaws, great men have great flaws.

if you want to criticizes someone fairly criticize Obama. He was voted president because he was black, and he has just continued and worsened what Bush began. But that is politics so no.

But seriously guys...find a target which it actually makes sense to criticize.

[YesNo]

Check out the foaming-at-the-mouth responses...
Who's foaming at the mouth?

By the way, isn't this thread a memorial to Hitchens? I can sort of see how Mother Theresa might be involved, but why Gandhi or Mandela? Surely there is more to Hitchens than his verbal attack on this nun.

However, if the purpose of the thread is now to trash other people's heroes perhaps we might start with Hitchens himself.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I looked at a few videos on youtube that captured him at his best recently. He's the kind of man you would enjoy being torn a new one by.

(He would hate that sentence ^^ by the way :p)

In his honour I will rectify

He's the kind of man that if he tore you a new one, you would enjoy it.


Hitchens also makes some telling points against some of Mandela's actions, or non-actions. These are easily found in a Google search. Here's one:

"By his silence about what is happening in Zimbabwe, Mandela is making himself complicit in the pillage and murder of an entire nation, as well as the strangulation of an important African democracy... It is the silence of Mandela, much more than anything else, that bruises the soul. It appears to make a mockery of all the brave talk about international standards for human rights, about the need for internationalist solidarity and the brotherhood of man, and all that. There is perhaps only one person in the world who symbolizes that spirit, and he has chosen to betray it."

His wife was a political murderer so finding any misdeeds by Mandela isn't difficult.

[KCurtis]

His wife was a political murderer so finding any misdeeds by Mandela isn't difficult.

What does what she did have to do with him? He was in prison while she was living in squalor, her life almost unbearable- and it turned her into a hateful person. Gee, what would you do? Let's all live in glass houses then. Why don't we try to find the perfect leaders out there who are oh so wonderful all the time. In my country, and especially in my state, these would be the Kennedy's. We had Teddy, a drunken killer, his brothers the philanderers who dragged their feet during the civil rights movement, and son John who went up in a plane and killed two sisters. But they are treated like kings. So who can we find?

[Patrick_Bateman]

What does what she did have to do with him? He was in prison while she was living in squalor, her life almost unbearable- and it turned her into a hateful person. Gee, what would you do? Let's all live in glass houses then. Why don't we try to find the perfect leaders out there who are oh so wonderful all the time. In my state, these would be the Kennedy's. We had Teddy, a drunken killer, his brothers the philanderers who dragged their feet during the civil rights movement, and son John who went up in a plane and killed two sisters. But they are treated like kings. So who can we find?

This was in the early years when she was part of the movement. If Mandela was indifferent enough to have allowed members to be as extreme and sanguinary as she was then isn't that something to criticise him for?

[KCurtis]

This was in the early years when she was part of the movement. If Mandela was indifferent enough to have allowed members to be as extreme and sanguinary as she was then isn't that something to criticise him for?
What was he supposed to do? And before he was imprisoned he was hardly ever home- The ANC demands on him were great.
Mandela was not against violence to end apartheid. He should never be thought of as such. Black people were living under extreme brutality and racism which was NOT against the S.A. constitution. .After Mandela was imprisoned Winnie became much more militant as she did not have him anymore, and had to raise her children in unspeakable squalid conditions. When he was released, he tried to convince her otherwise, and could not reconcile. It was very very sad, he writes about it in The Long Walk to Freedom.

[JuniperWoolf]

Look, Ghandi was somewhat racist in his youth before he became The Ghandi we all know. But you cannot say Gahndi is racist.

I didn't say Gandhi is racist. Gandhi is dead.


Have you ever read a book written by gahndi, have you ever read a biography about his life?

All of the above quotes were from his collective works, so that would be a "yes." I first learned about the controversy surrounding Gandhi's attitude towards race during highschool, he was given to me as my year-long biography assignment (worth 40% of our final grade). I've read a fair deal about him.

Have you?


By the way, isn't this thread a memorial to Hitchens? I can sort of see how Mother Theresa might be involved, but why Gandhi or Mandela? Surely there is more to Hitchens than his verbal attack on this nun.

Hitchens dedicated a lot of his time and writing to the concept of sainthood ("mahatma" means sage or saint). This thread is actually a great memorial, we're sharing his ideas. I like it.


However, if the purpose of the thread is now to trash other people's heroes perhaps we might start with Hitchens himself.

Go for it, I'm aware that the people who I respect aren't saints. Hitchens was a terrible drunk, you might want to start there.

[Climacus]

Hitchens was a terrible drunk, you might want to start there.
I seem to remember Michael Coren - a local (Toronto) journalist and television personality - noting that he had trounced Hitchens in a public debate. But he further noted, laughingly, that Hitchens had been drunk at the time. :cheers2:

[Climacus]

Francis Collins, the famous geneticist, wrote a nice article on Hitchens in the Washington Post: In remembrance of my friend Hitch (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/in-remembrance-of-my-friend-hitch/2011/12/18/gIQAHxMx2O_blog.html).

[YesNo]

Hitchens (I'm guessing) attacked Mother Teresa for the same reason Orwell attacked Gandhi. They both revelled in their skill at attacking things, so they picked seemingly difficult targets. Any hack writer can find something to despise about Stalin; it takes someone of Hitchens' talents to write entire books critical of a saint. (Although I admire Hitchens' talents, I think he's off base in his critique of Mother Teresa. Because he doesn't buy into her goals or worldview, he sees no value in what she did. He could see value in HELPING the poor physically -- with money, food, medical care. But he can't see the spiritual value of simply loving them.)
I think you may be right. Mother Teresa was a worthy target. There may also be envy involved since she's a saint and he ain't.

However, I also think that attacking Mother Teresa was calculated as likely to sell more books than attacking someone like Hitler.

I was browsing through his god is not Great in the library this evening and it occurred to me what Hitchens was really good at was hate-mongering. His criticism of the various religions he addressed, though filled with interesting details, didn't really hit his targets as hard as someone who knew what they were talking about could have done. But I don't think critiquing these religions was his real motive. He wanted to sell books and his captive audience got off on hate-orgasms. So he gave them what they wanted. Who can blame him? That's what he was good it. It was just another kind of pornography.

[JuniperWoolf]

I think you may be right. Mother Teresa was a worthy target. There may also be envy involved since she's a saint and he ain't.

*facepalm*

Mother Teresa:

1. Took money from mass murderers and criminals such as the Duvalier family (whom she supported openly), money which was pillaged from the starving people of Haiti, which she gave to the vatican and also used to build nunneries.

2. Convinced people in the first world that they were donating money to help poor people, when in actuality she used that money to build nunneries. To this day the Missionaries of Charity organization that she started is the only Indian charity which does not publish it's financial records, but it's clear when one takes into account how many nunneries she created (over 150) and how much money she raked in vs. the quality of care given at her "Homes for the Dying" that barely anything went to the poor. She decieved people, if they had known that they were giving money so that she could train brainwashed white and blue penguins (the Missionaries of Charity control everything that the nuns and brothers see and hear, they aren't even allowed to read the newspaper) I doubt they would have donated as much as they did.

3. Meanwhile, her Homes of the Dying (which is what everyone thought they were donating to) recieved barely any funding at all. The conditions were terrible, it was more like a prison. The people who stayed there weren't allowed to see their friends and family and they weren't allowed to leave their hard little cot (which were packed in like anchovies) except to use the public toilets which were exposed for everyone in the room to see. Most of the people making the medical decisions had no training whatsoever, they re-used hypodermic needles (that is, when the patients actually got medicine) and forced everyone to take cold baths, a la 19th century psychiatric institutions. The staff couldn't tell the difference between a curable and an incurable disease, so they stuffed everyone together and as a result many people who might have been fine if they hadn't sought aid got infected with something worse and died. Apparently she raised $50 million in her world tour (we can't be sure, since saints are immune to audit) and where did it all go? Not where people thought it would, that's for sure.

4. She wanted people to suffer because she felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus. Sanal Edamaruku criticised her failure to give painkillers, writing that in her Homes for the Dying one could "hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers are even in hard cases not given. According to Mother Teresa's philosophy, it is 'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ'."

Hitchens didn't criticize Mother Teresa because he thought it would be a lark or because he thought it would be difficult (it clearly wasn't), he criticized the batty old lizard because she was a fraud and a crook. She adopted the guise of a saint in order to raise money and spread her weird suffering fetish around. Why do you trust this "saint" title so wholeheartedly? Why don't you hear from her critics and decide if their arguments are valid before forming an opinion? Here:

Mother Teresa: The Final Verdict by Aroup Chatterjee
Hope Endures: Leaving Mother Teresa, Losing Faith, and Searching for Meaning by Colette Livermore, a former Missionary of Charity
And of course The Missionary Position by Christopher Hitchens.

[Darcy88]

I think you may be right. Mother Teresa was a worthy target. There may also be envy involved since she's a saint and he ain't.

However, I also think that attacking Mother Teresa was calculated as likely to sell more books than attacking someone like Hitler.

I was browsing through his god is not Great in the library this evening and it occurred to me what Hitchens was really good at was hate-mongering. His criticism of the various religions he addressed, though filled with interesting details, didn't really hit his targets as hard as someone who knew what they were talking about could have done. But I don't think critiquing these religions was his real motive. He wanted to sell books and his captive audience got off on hate-orgasms. So he gave them what they wanted. Who can blame him? That's what he was good it. It was just another kind of pornography.

A rather crude assessment of the man's corpus if you ask me. Hitchens' anti-religious polemicizing was in part a response to various high profile faith-related absurdities and catastrophes which transpired at the beginning of the 21st century. September 11th, the gay marriage debate, Terry Schiavo, ect. Furthermore, buffoons like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell needed to be answered, sword to sword. There are enough threads in which my fellow atheists and I bash religion. I'll just say I think the Hitch had a point.

[Alexander III]

I didn't say Gandhi is racist. Gandhi is dead.

Well played.

All of the above quotes were from his collective works, so that would be a "yes." I first learned about the controversy surrounding Gandhi's attitude towards race during highschool, he was given to me as my year-long biography assignment (worth 40% of our final grade). I've read a fair deal about him.

Have you?

Fine if reading a few quotes is equivalent to having read a book for you....


Hitchens dedicated a lot of his time and writing to the concept of sainthood ("mahatma" means sage or saint). This thread is actually a great memorial, we're sharing his ideas. I like it.


Mahatma can be literally translated as Saint, but it's connotations are entirely different. Saint has otherworldly connotations, it is beyond human. Mathma, is does not have the same supernatural to it, is means just more spiritually evolved, it is more akin to Genius than Saint, but Genius of spirituality. Being more aware of the human condition that the average man, and being more sensitive thaa the average man.


Go for it, I'm aware that the people who I respect aren't saints. Hitchens was a terrible drunk, you might want to start there.

That is hardly a criticism. Maybe 50 years ago it was, but nowadays drunk is almost a compliment. It is sexy and cool. Chronic masturbationist is worst than alcoholic in our society. But due to perception. So don't give a awkward criticism which is in truth just a compliment. If you criticize do it well, don't manipulate.

I liked Hitchens he was a very witty man of sound intellect. And he does make many very valid points concerning Mother Teresa. But I never got the feeling that he was attacking he per se, he always saw her as a victim not as the oppressor. He felt much sympathy and pity for her, and how the Catholic Church had taken advantage of her and ****ed with her mind.

But Hitchens like Dawkins, while both intelligent men, are also limited. I say limited but what I mean is they are not geniuses, which is not an insult at all, but some people perceive them as such.

I think Stephan Fry has a better outlook on life, as he seems to understand more, thought Hitchins was closer to FRy as he did understand a lot beyond the statistics and numbers which Dawkins cannot go beyond.

But yes to get back on topic it was sad to see him go, definitely one of the bright spots of his generation.


A rather crude assessment of the man's corpus if you ask me. Hitchens' anti-religious polemicizing was in part a response to various high profile faith-related absurdities and catastrophes which transpired at the beginning of the 21st century. September 11th, the gay marriage debate, Terry Schiavo, ect. Furthermore, buffoons like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell needed to be answered, sword to sword. There are enough threads in which my fellow atheists and I bash religion. I'll just say I think the Hitch had a point.


But the point is to be better men.

The Tsars soldiers would kill all who opposed the Tsar. When the Comunists took power they could have been the better men, but they didn't, they did the same thing the Tsar did.

What I mean to say is, if you descend to their level your are no better than them. You are only more hypocritical.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I would just like to point out that Mother Teresa has not yet been canonised and is therefore not yet a saint. She was beatified not long after her death but a second miracle is needed for her to be made into a saint.

[The Ol' Man]

I was absolutely incredulous when I noticed 'Hitchens - dead at 62' here, and even more
so when I searched him and discovered he had only died earlier this month. I had thought
the man dead of that malady years ago. This is terrible news, and I speak as one with
an interest in God. I have not had much patience with the spurious contentions of other
atheists who've run amok, but Hitchens never failed to endear himself with his unsurpassed
wit and humour whenever I came upon his debates and interviews. He will be sorely missed by many,
and posterity will find his distinctive oratorical flourish difficult to rival.

[mal4mac]

My god, Gahndi, Mandela ect. are not gods, they are men. If we hold them up to the standards of gods yes they fall short. But if we hold them to the standards of normal men such as me or anyone else on this forum....well, needless to say we can't talk much. But yes they are men and thus not perfect. Men have flaws, great men have great flaws...find a target which it actually makes sense to criticize.

Hitchens is not holding Mandela up to the standards off gods! Only up to the standards of any decent, liberal democrat. All he asked Mandela to do was to use his weighty voice to say what Hitchens, and most right-thinking people, were saying about Mugabe. This is a great example of 'Hitchens the gadfly" in action - spurring the "good & great" to be "better & greater"...

[Alexander III]

Hitchens is not holding Mandela up to the standards off gods! Only up to the standards of any decent, liberal democrat. All he asked Mandela to do was to use his weighty voice to say what Hitchens, and most right-thinking people, were saying about Mugabe. This is a great example of 'Hitchens the gadfly" in action - spurring the "good & great" to be "better & greater"...

Nope it is a great of example of narrow thinking. When one is a writer one can say what ever one wants.

When one is the leader of a nation, things are more complicated, the world is not black and white, but then again people who end up leaders of nations know that already.

On Topic

This is why I love Hitchens, because Reason for him is a tool not a limitation. He cared for humanity in a way which people like Dawkins just cant reach.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9TMwfkDwIY&feature=related

[YesNo]

Hitchens didn't criticize Mother Teresa because he thought it would be a lark or because he thought it would be difficult (it clearly wasn't), he criticized the batty old lizard because she was a fraud and a crook.
I don't know nor care to learn anything about Mother Teresa, Gandhi or Mandela. I couldn't care less if they were crooks, frauds or batty old lizards.

What I learned yesterday after a quick reading of Hitchens' god is not Great is how he promotes hatred. He picks a detail, say, Mother Teresa, some guru, or whatever, to represent a religious tradition. He portrays this detail with enough scorn to generate self-righteous disgust in his readers and then generalizes that disgust to the entire religious tradition. That's hate-mongering. If he were directing this tactic against a minority group, he would be racist.

I'm not defending Mother Teresa. I'm criticizing Hitchens' readers who fall for that kind of rhetoric. I suspect the reason his followers fall for it is because self-righteousness must turn them on in some way. If there is another reason, what is it?


There are enough threads in which my fellow atheists and I bash religion.
Bashing is usually counterproductive and so I hope you continue to do it.

When I came to these forums about a year ago I didn't think much about atheism one way or the other. Nor do I have at the moment any particular God that I could point to to prove I am really a theist, but after reading many posts by atheists bashing religion I now have to refrain myself from immediately rejecting anything whatsoever any posters who have labelled themselves "atheists" might be proposing.

So bash away!


I would just like to point out that Mother Teresa has not yet been canonised and is therefore not yet a saint. She was beatified not long after her death but a second miracle is needed for her to be made into a saint.
I stand corrected.

[JuniperWoolf]

Mahatma can be literally translated as Saint, but it's connotations are entirely different. Saint has otherworldly connotations, it is beyond human. Mathma, is does not have the same supernatural to it, is means just more spiritually evolved, it is more akin to Genius than Saint, but Genius of spirituality. Being more aware of the human condition that the average man, and being more sensitive thaa the average man.

Well then it is otherworldly, because that's what spiritual means.

My goal isn't in semantics or to bash Gandhi (and I don't think that pointing out examples of racism displayed in the early twentieth century is controversial, you'd only find it so if you honestly believed that Gandhi was perfect). My point (inspired by skeptics like Hitchens, which is why we're having this conversation) is really quite simple and straightforward, it's that people shouldn't put their complete faith into other human beings, especially if you're basing that faith on their stupid title or their superior "spirituality." To believe that someone is born "spiritually better" than other people is to take accountability out of your judgement. It should be their writings and their actions that define your heroes and not their stupid title, yet many paint "saints" as paragons when they don't even know what that person did. They don't know anything about Gandhi's philosophy of peaceful resistance or his rebellion against British Imperialism, so to put him on a pillar because of his title and reputation is more of an insult than anything because it's like his actions and writings don't matter, he was born just so inhumanly perfect and that's all we need to know so no point reading up on him. It's lazy thinking. It is BECAUSE of this lazy thinking, this willingness to put so much faith into title and reputation, that a batty old fraud like Mother Teresa is still defended by people who don't know a thing about her.


And he does make many very valid points concerning Mother Teresa. But I never got the feeling that he was attacking he per se, he always saw her as a victim not as the oppressor.

Eh, I don't agree with that. I don't even have to go rooting around, Climacus already delivered a sufficently punchy Hitchens quote re. Mother T earlier in this thread:


The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it’s a shame there is no hell for your b*tch to go to.



That is hardly a criticism. Maybe 50 years ago it was, but nowadays drunk is almost a compliment. It is sexy and cool.

Haha, you would think that.


I would just like to point out that Mother Teresa has not yet been canonised and is therefore not yet a saint. She was beatified not long after her death but a second miracle is needed for her to be made into a saint.

I was told that the Pope said some magic words quite recently and brought it down to one post mortem miracle (don't quote me on that though - I heard it from a reliable fellow, but that doesn't mean that he isn't wrong). Apparently Mother Teresa's ghost cured some woman's disease so she's a saint, but the woman's husband insists that she was cured by medicine.


I don't know nor care to learn anything about Mother Teresa, Gandhi or Mandela. I couldn't care less if they were crooks, frauds or batty old lizards.

Then why are you engaging in this conversation?


What I learned yesterday after a quick reading of Hitchens' god is not Great is how he promotes hatred. He picks a detail, say, Mother Teresa, some guru, or whatever, to represent a religious tradition. He portrays this detail with enough scorn to generate self-righteous disgust in his readers and then generalizes that disgust to the entire religious tradition. That's hate-mongering. If he were directing this tactic against a minority group, he would be racist.

Hah, you don't know what you're talking about. If you're saying that Christians use Mother Teresa as a religious symbol or perfect example of their religion, then I know a few Christians who would like to have a word with you. How could being disgusted by the fact that there are millions of people in the world who STILL defend her (all the while not knowing who the hell she even was) and then spending some of your time on the occasional "actually she was a really bad person" conversation be considered hate-mongering against Christians? She doesn't represent the religion. If I despise John, and John just so happens to be black, does that mean that I despise black people? If you think the answer is "yes," then it likely means that you're racist.

Mother T was a bad person because she made deals with war criminals who stole money from starving Hatians and also because she put on the guise of a saint (a costume and an act, which WAY too many people still believe) in order to trick people and take their donation money to spread her cult of suffering around the world. We're judging a person's actions and if you have a problem with that because she was a Catholic then too bad. My position has nothing to do with her religion or her race.


Bashing is usually counterproductive and so I hope you continue to do it.

Not really. Expressing one's dissent by exercising freedom of speech has generally proven to be quite effective.


When I came to these forums about a year ago I didn't think much about atheism one way or the other. Nor do I have at the moment any particular God that I could point to to prove I am really a theist, but after reading many posts by atheists bashing religion I now have to refrain myself from immediately rejecting anything whatsoever any posters who have labelled themselves "atheists" might be proposing.


I'm not an atheist. I'm interested in discussing the effects of organized religion and people's mindset in regards to their organization (and it's bloody saints) which really has nothing to do with the question of whether there actually is a god.

[sadparadise]

Rest well hitch. You have changed many minds. Christopher you have put your shoulder to the wheel charting many lives on a new course. I will lend out your books to help others see that reason is the only light. Your work has been a benefit to humankind. I will not prey for you, I will think well of you. Ad astra ....

[mal4mac]

Nope it is a great of example of narrow thinking. When one is a writer one can say what ever one wants.

If you want to be see as a serious, as Hitchens certainly did, you cannot "say what you want." I think it's ridiculous accusing Hitchens of "narrow thinking". Even his main detractors never accused him of that! I guess hiding behind the false name of Alexander III you *can* just "say what you want" - but If you don't want a really rocky ride in a thread in praise of Hitchens I think you should try and avoid it - start by thinking before you type - and read some Hitchens, then see if you can come back and accuse him (again) of narrow thinking. It's like accusing Einstein of not thinking out of the box!

[KCurtis]

Originally posted by JuniperWolf]
Hah, you don't know what you're talking about. If you're saying that Christians use Mother Teresa as a religious symbol or perfect example of their religion, then I know a few Christians who would like to have a word with you. How could being disgusted by the fact that there are millions of people in the world who STILL defend her (all the while not knowing who the hell she even was) and then spending some of your time on the occasional "actually she was a really bad person" conversation be considered hate-mongering against Christians? She doesn't represent the religion. If I despise John, and John just so happens to be black, does that mean that I despise black people? If you think the answer is "yes," then it likely means that you're racist.

Mother T was a bad person because she made deals with war criminals who stole money from starving Hatians and also because she put on the guise of a saint (a costume and an act, which WAY too many people still believe) in order to trick people and take their donation money to spread her cult of suffering around the world. We're judging a person's actions and if you have a problem with that because she was a Catholic then too bad. My position has nothing to do with her religion or her race.

I like your voice of reason, JuniperWolf. I myself thought Mother Teresa was a hero, until I looked at the evidence you provided. I am not a religious person, so maybe that's why it was easier to swallow. I think there are some Christians who are also objective in this regard. And as you said, it is lazy thinking to believe something without researching. I think the problem is that there are so many religious figures that people want to look up to, and those great figures are narrowing into a very few- especially in the Catholic Church where there have been so many scandalous incidents with hard evidence to back them up. Instead of looking up to famous figures, religious people really need to look no further than your average citizen and parish priest or minister to find goodness, and if they can't, find another place where you can.

[Alexander III]

If you want to be see as a serious, as Hitchens certainly did, you cannot "say what you want." I think it's ridiculous accusing Hitchens of "narrow thinking". Even his main detractors never accused him of that! I guess hiding behind the false name of Alexander III you *can* just "say what you want" - but If you don't want a really rocky ride in a thread in praise of Hitchens I think you should try and avoid it - start by thinking before you type - and read some Hitchens, then see if you can come back and accuse him (again) of narrow thinking. It's like accusing Einstein of not thinking out of the box!

The Irony here is that you are doing the very thing Hitchens and Juniper Wolf in this thread, rail about. Hero worship, as in - Hitchens was open minded, therefore everything Hitchens said was open minded. Einstein was creative, therefore everything Einstein did was Creative, even the ****s which he took was creative I am sure...

Look I am a fan of Hitchens. I liked him. But to deny that the subsequent statement he made is anything less than narrow minded is an insult to to his Memory, and an insult to me. When I talk to mal4mac I talk to you, by spouting ideas of another man and sticking dogmatically to them you insult me, I debate with you, have the decency to think for yourself. Instead of holding up Hitchens as some infallible God.

I stick to what I said, that statement of Hitchens was very narrow minded. Feel free to disagree.

Are you seriously going to discuss how my anonymity allows me to say what I want? Look around you bud this is the internet...I am hardly a unique snowflake when it come to anonymity.

And at least Alexander is my first name, I am sorry I did not provide my last name and address and patronymic. Mal4mac?Seriously and you criticizes me?

One of the things I admired about Hitchens is that he did say what he wanted, and that is a great thing about being a writer. You can, sure you might alienate people but that is all self conscious cowardice.

A leader of a nation on the other hand, he can't say everything he wants, not because like the pussy writer he is scared X will get pissed and Y might get Offended - but because unlike a writer which is responsible solely for himself, Mandela is responsible for an entire ****ing nation. Can you honestly not see the difference ?

If you choose to continue said argument, I ask you to look at Junipers woolf's posts in this thread, she knows how to argue, she stays on point, and makes relevant non-personal attacks which force me to retort, what she does not do, which you seem very apt at is grab for any thought and spurt it out not considering that fact that it is ridiculous at best. Such as:

-Critiquing me on an online forum, because I have an anonymous identity? I might as well go to a KKK meeting and critique the clan for it's overt use of the word nigger during our meetings...

-Criticizing me for having the audacity to critique the infallible deity of Hitchens on a point that he made which was rather weak, but since it came from the divine mouth must be correct and a line of wisdom.

_ Critiquing me on the basis that I did not keep my head down, but that I called out at what I thought was wrong - of all places on a thread devoted to Hitchens...

-Making assumptions about my knowledge of Hitchens which there is no basis for, and saying them as if they were fact.

Seriously? I like to think that when I argue with someone I show the respect of at least arguing in a way which does not inspire ridicule...

[Alexander III]

Well then it is otherworldly, because that's what spiritual means.

My goal isn't in semantics or to bash Gandhi (and I don't think that pointing out examples of racism displayed in the early twentieth century is controversial, you'd only find it so if you honestly believed that Gandhi was perfect). My point (inspired by skeptics like Hitchens, which is why we're having this conversation) is really quite simple and straightforward, it's that people shouldn't put their complete faith into other human beings, especially if you're basing that faith on their stupid title or their superior "spirituality." To believe that someone is born "spiritually better" than other people is to take accountability out of your judgement. It should be their writings and their actions that define your heroes and not their stupid title, yet many paint "saints" as paragons when they don't even know what that person did. They don't know anything about Gandhi's philosophy of peaceful resistance or his rebellion against British Imperialism, so to put him on a pillar because of his title and reputation is more of an insult than anything because it's like his actions and writings don't matter, he was born just so inhumanly perfect and that's all we need to know so no point reading up on him. It's lazy thinking. It is BECAUSE of this lazy thinking, this willingness to put so much faith into title and reputation, that a batty old fraud like Mother Teresa is still defended by people who don't know a thing about her.



But that is exactly what I do. I don't admire Gahndi because he has the tittle of Mahatma, I admire him because he may very well be the only person in history to obtain freedom for his nation without the firing of a single bullet.

I admire him because until his death, he lived in poverty, when he could have just like everyone else gained a nice fortune off of the state...something which me being Italian It makes I admire it even more, considering an honest politician in Italy is about as rare as a Green skinned Swede.

I admire him for having the strength to continue and never giving up, knowing that few men, not in his lifetime, but in human history could have had the strength to not give up and not loose hope.

I admire him for what he did, not for any semantic reason, or other reason. And if the reasons I stated above, you find unimpressive, fine, we have different standards of what we admire in men, and let us agree to disagree on that point.

I am not saying he was perfect, the man had great flaws, but I maintain my belief that all men are flawed, and that the great men are greatly flawed.

The greater a man is, the more above mediocrity he rised, the greater his flaws from mediocrity rise too. Greatness pulls on both sides of the line. Because greatness, is not about being good or evil, is is about strength, true character strength, like that of Garibaldi, or Mandela or Washington - to never give up, to persevere when all odds are against you and every man who stood by your side has abandoned you. I admire that, because I could count on my fingers the numbers of men in all human history who have had such fortitude of will. Such courage.

I never said I admired Gahndi because he was a moral man, I admire Gahndi because he was one of the few men who can really be said to have possessed true courage.

[Patrick_Bateman]

Is living in abject poverty despite the opportunity to live in relative comfort something we should praise and describe as noble though? Glorifying poverty isn't somethign we should exalt.

Can ascetism and a spartan existence really be synonymous with virtue? When it is no longer necessary.

Austerity and poverty are not the same thing

[Alexander III]

Is living in abject poverty despite the opportunity to live in relative comfort something we should praise and describe as noble though? Glorifying poverty isn't somethign we should exalt.

Can ascetism and a spartan existence really be synonymous with virtue? When it is no longer necessary.

Austerity and poverty are not the same thing

If a man preaches charity, and that all men should live equally yes.

What you are saying is, you admire men who preach charity, and then live like kings while there are men around them dying from hunger?

If a man says "**** the poor" to each himself, fair enough. Personally I openly admit, it is unfair that I should have so much and that there are those who should have so little, but I openly say I would not have it any other way, the current system works for me, why would I want to change it - In truth I would rather have a new car than save some children's lives in Africa. Why? Because I care about the new car, I want the new car- the children in Africa, well in all honesty I don't give that much of a care about them. Anyone who says otherwise should put his money where his mouth is, or is a hypocrite in my opinion..Gahndi was not a hypocrite when it came to this. He said, I love them all like my brothers and thus he did give all he had. There was a bad side to, as his children were left with nothing when he died because any money he made during his life he gave to the poor

Personally I admire that, It would be grand if I had his courage and his ability to love all men with such power, but I have neither the courage or love that he possessed. I have a car. A car I know I don't need, a car I know that had I not bought it, and instead given the money to charity, would have saved several lives. But I have not the love in me to value human life which I do not know nor will ever know,I prefer added comfort to my life than saving the lives of starving people in Africa or India.

I say car, but by car I mean general lifestyle, spending several hundreds of pounds in a night out in london, having an extensive wardrobe, spending ridiculous sums on cigarettes and recreational drugs, ect. Sometimes I think about how all the money I spend on drugs alcohol cigarets hookers women, how all that money could really have brought change and happiness into the lives of the less fortunate. But I care far more about the former than the latter.

I assume you like I in your life value extra comfort in your life over the human lives of some unknown people in a far away distant country. Everyday we all answer the question, what is a human life worth? Not very much if we don't know them, if we don't see them starve before our eyes and watch them suffer, we value our personal comfort far more than some nigger in africa or paki or chink...

If a man were to come up to me and say, sell every single material possession of yours, or a child somewhere in the world will die - well I and you and near everyone else would say "**** it let the child die, at the end of the day what the damn do I care about this person"

But Gahndi, he did what none of us would do, he said "fine take everything I have, but give the child a life, let him live"

If you do not find that noble, fine. I wont critique you for it. Sticking to reason, there is no logic behind giving up everything in life to save the life or help out people you don't know and never will know. It is illogical and there is no reason for it. But I guess that is why I admire Gahndi, because he said, "yes there is no logic, there is no reason, it makes no sense, But I do it anyway? Why? because reason is my tool not my limitation."

Do you disagree?

[Patrick_Bateman]

Before I read the rest of your post Alexander I want to say right now that what you wrote in your first sentence to me is NOT what I was saying.

[Patrick_Bateman]

When I wrote my post, the name 'Gandhi' was never tapped on the keyboard. My statements were of a general nature. Gandhi's self-sacrifice and charity is commendable of course, but what I don't agree with the people who consider his way of life to have been noble and virtuous. To subject yourself and family to abject poverty when the means are there to live a comfortable - but simple - life is an insult to what the truly impoverished who suffer immense privation. Gandhi's self imposed hardships showed his dedication and unity with the people he loved and what he gave away to the poor in order to resign himself to an impoverished life I'm sure helped a few. However it is the act in itself is what I find irksome. It glorifies a life of privation and sends the message that you can be a venerable person by having nothing.

It is better to use you accumulated wealth in order to keep yourself prosperous and increase that wealth and to establish yourself as a philanthropist. Howard Hughes donated over $1.5bn to medical charities and research over his life and it did a lot more good than he would have done if someone for example sells a business to give the money to charity.

Now of course this is difficult to apply to a man like Gandhi as he could hardly have been expected to go into business but like I said I have a problem with his actions as a general idea as a noble and virtuous way of life.

Temperance, love and CHARITY are virtues NOT self-inflicted poverty.

[Alexander III]

Before I read the rest of your post Alexander I want to say right now that what you wrote in your first sentence to me is NOT what I was saying.

Ahh...I did not understand what you meant, my bad. Now I feel silly.


When I wrote my post, the name 'Gandhi' was never tapped on the keyboard.

Mia culpa, since you quoted me and I was talking about Gandhi, I assumed. My bad.


My statements were of a general nature. Gandhi's self-sacrifice and charity is commendable of course, but what I don't agree with the people who consider his way of life to have been noble and virtuous.

So his way of life deserves praise, but not too much. Just to clarify, is that what you mean. If so, I can see why you might say that. As I mentioned before, when he died he left his family penniless. Also in his diaries he fought against the instinct to love his children more than other children as his ideal was to love equally and love none more than the rest as that would lead to feelings of selfishness and when you love one more than the rest that is when barriers are created between people. Many parents would find this idea horrendous. Personally I admire his ambition, he demanded of himself to literally be a saint, even though in so many ways it is completely opposed to human nature. jealously, greed, selfishness ect. are all basic human instincts.

You and I see his ambition for perfection in different light. That is all.



Gandhi's self imposed hardships showed his dedication and unity with the people he loved and what he gave away to the poor in order to resign himself to an impoverished life I'm sure helped a few.

A few? The man liberated an entire country from an oppressive imperialist regime, without the loss of a single life on either side, and you call that helping a few.

Of course here you could point out how the British did do much good for india. They brought infrastructure and technology and religious freedom. But at the end of the day, an indian man in india, was a second class citizen in his own country. The British regarded themselves as racily superior. Can you imagine what it must be like to be born and grow up in your country, and in your country be deemed a second class citizen because a white man says his culture is superior to yours and his race is superior to yours, so even in your own country you remain inferior.

Sure you might call this Politically correct propaganda. You might say that India right now would be a better place had England never given them independence. And there are valid points for that.

But name how many revolutions in human history successfully freed an oppressed people without the firing of a single bullet or the use of a single blade?

Gandhi "helped a few", like George Washington "helped a few" I suppose.


However it is the act in itself is what I find irksome. It glorifies a life of privation and sends the message that you can be a venerable person by having nothing.

No, it does not give the message that those who have nothing are venerable. It gives the message that sacrificing everything to help those who have nothing is venerable.


It is better to use you accumulated wealth in order to keep yourself prosperous and increase that wealth and to establish yourself as a philanthropist. Howard Hughes donated over $1.5bn to medical charities and research over his life and it did a lot more good than he would have done if someone for example sells a business to give the money to charity.

I see a grave and ironic flaw in this argument. When it comes to virtue, one cannot discuss about it like a competition, " he raised x amount more than him who raised x amount, so he is more virtuous" Simply by you using that logic, I know that me and you have two completely different ideas of what "virtue" is.


Now of course this is difficult to apply to a man like Gandhi as he could hardly have been expected to go into business but like I said I have a problem with his actions as a general idea as a noble and virtuous way of life.

Temperance, love and CHARITY are virtues NOT self-inflicted poverty.


He did not inflict poverty on himself for the sake of inflicting poverty upon himself. Is that what you seriously think?

When Jesus said "a rich man has less chance of entering heaven than a camel has of passing trough the eye of the needle"

He did not mean That poor people are better. he meant that when there are poor, that means people who have a scarcity of basic needs, a rich man ( one who has an overabundance) by the simple fact of possessing far more than he needs is the cause of the poor having far less than they need.

Gandhi lived in poverty, because he knew
"I am strong, I can take this, and stand up and keep walking. But there are many who cannot take this, who let it break them till they fall on their knees. Since I am strong, I must give what I have to the weaker, I can endure the suffering more than them, and thus I need less than them. My joy comes from knowing they are happy."

Your outlook on Gandhi is skewed. I asume because as most people, you generalize. You probably read Hitchens book on Theresa, and assumed it was the same case with gandhi. When they are two completely distinct and separate things.

Were we talking about her, you would be right, but we are talking about a different man, so you can;t use the same book, you need a different book.

A plough is great when one needs to seed the earth. But one must know that a plough cannot be used for harvesting apples.

[Alexander III]

I just re-read my last posts and I just realized that I sound like a supercilious pompous know it all, condescending ***. So I apologize on that behalf. I got over-swayed by the fact that you guys had such difference opinions on Gandhi which to me appeared as completely misinformed.

I stick to what I said, but I apologize for the way I said it.

[Patrick_Bateman]

I have never read a word written by Hitchens.

I see you have misinterpreted what I wrote in order to argue more emphatically against me.

We were not talking about his 'Quit India' the INC or his campaign for independence we were talking about his aid to the impoverished, so when I said he helped 'a few' it was in reference to that. There were over 500m Indians in India in the 1940s so I think using the term 'a few' isn't so off the mark.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Why post if you Want to avoid conversation? :lol:

[YesNo]

Then why are you engaging in this conversation?

Because I feel like it.

The thread is about Hitchens. I'm finding his hate-mongering, which I only recently discovered, increasingly interesting thanks to your posts trashing Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa herself I couldn't care less about.



Hah, you don't know what you're talking about. If you're saying that Christians use Mother Teresa as a religious symbol or perfect example of their religion, then I know a few Christians who would like to have a word with you. How could being disgusted by the fact that there are millions of people in the world who STILL defend her (all the while not knowing who the hell she even was) and then spending some of your time on the occasional "actually she was a really bad person" conversation be considered hate-mongering against Christians? She doesn't represent the religion. If I despise John, and John just so happens to be black, does that mean that I despise black people? If you think the answer is "yes," then it likely means that you're racist.


If someone despises John, portrays John in a way to make him look contemptible and then generalizes that contempt to all people who look like John, have the same nationality as John or have the same religion as John then that person would no longer be a "gadfly", as I've heard some in this thread try to portray Hitchens, but a bigot.



I'm not an atheist. I'm interested in discussing the effects of organized religion and people's mindset in regards to their organization (and it's bloody saints) which really has nothing to do with the question of whether there actually is a god.

I'm interested in discussing the effects of Hitchens' anti-religious hate rhetoric on the self-righteousness of his supporters.

[JuniperWoolf]

But that is exactly what I do. I don't admire Gahndi because he has the tittle of Mahatma, I admire him because he may very well be the only person in history to obtain freedom for his nation without the firing of a single bullet.

Oh no, that's perfectly kosher. The only problem is when people avidly defend someone without knowing anything about them, or when they believe that there's such a thing as a perfect person (really, they might as well believe in unicorns).


I like your voice of reason, JuniperWolf. I myself thought Mother Teresa was a hero, until I looked at the evidence you provided.

That's really cool actually. See? I knew this was a worthy memorial thread, Hitchens' goal in writing The Missionary Position was communicated to someone who wasn't aware of it until now.


The thread is about Hitchens. I'm finding his hate-mongering, which I only recently discovered, increasingly interesting thanks to your posts trashing Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa herself I couldn't care less about.

So you don't know anything about Mother Teresa, but you disagree with Hitchens for disagreeing with her because she was Catholic. *cough* Oooookay...


I'm interested in discussing the effects of Hitchens' anti-religious hate rhetoric on the self-righteousness of his supporters.

Well you're not off to a very good start, but good luck.

Your first goal is going to have to be proving that Hitchens really did spread anti-religious hate rhetoric. Off you go.

[JBI]

Meh, I am an atheist, and I just think Hitchens was a jerk. God or no, I wouldn't have wanted him as a friend based on his literature, and public persona.

As for his family, my condolences, as it is always hard to cope with death. He may not be in heaven, but ultimately, he is going to be remembered for a period of time, especially by those who knew him best.

As for how he died - well maybe this can be a new lesson. There may or may not be a god, but you aught not to smoke like a chimney and drink the a horse as it is detrimental to one's health.

[Alexander III]

I have never read a word written by Hitchens.



......

[Patrick_Bateman]

......

......To you too

I don't need to have read anything by him to have a knowledge of Gandhi or an opinion on poverty and ascetism.

[WillardS]

He had some views which I didn't like, but yes, RIP.

[YesNo]

So you don't know anything about Mother Teresa, but you disagree with Hitchens for disagreeing with her because she was Catholic. *cough* Oooookay...

As far as I'm concerned you could been trashing the tooth fairy and the criticism of self-righteousness would have been the same. Does that help clarify the issue?



Your first goal is going to have to be proving that Hitchens really did spread anti-religious hate rhetoric. Off you go.

That is not hard to prove. Have you read Hitchens' god is not Great: how religion poisons everything?

I was thinking that one could imitate Hitchens' rhetoric and come up with a book called God is Great: how atheism poisons everything. I suspect one could do the same for any group one was interested in slandering, which is one reason why Hitchens' book deserves the description of hate rhetoric.

Come to think of it, references to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would be a nice way to smear atheism. Have you seen the movie The Killing Fields?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087553/

The problems of self-righteousness, for me at least, are graphically made evident in a scene from that movie where a person is bound and kneeling while a young female approaches him to carefully place a plastic bag over his head.

[Darcy88]

As far as I'm concerned you could been trashing the tooth fairy and the criticism of self-righteousness would have been the same. Does that help clarify the issue?


That is not hard to prove. Have you read Hitchens' god is not Great: how religion poisons everything?

I was thinking that one could imitate Hitchens' rhetoric and come up with a book called God is Great: how atheism poisons everything. I suspect one could do the same for any group one was interested in slandering, which is one reason why Hitchens' book deserves the description of hate rhetoric.

Come to think of it, references to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge would be a nice way to smear atheism. Have you seen the movie The Killing Fields?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087553/

The problems of self-righteousness, for me at least, are graphically made evident in a scene from that movie where a person is bound and kneeling while a young female approaches him to carefully place a plastic bag over his head.

Self-righteous? Self-righteous is claiming that atheists can't have good family lives. Self-righteous is labelling a massive group self-righteous.

[YesNo]

Self-righteous? Self-righteous is claiming that atheists can't have good family lives. Self-righteous is labelling a massive group self-righteous.
Perhaps. Perhaps just a "gadfly" to use an excuse given for Hitchens' behavior.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm better than they are. That's not the case. These issues interest me because I am as liable to self-righteousness as anyone else.

Based on what I've read in this thread about Gandhi, it looks like he wasn't any better than any of us either in his early years. Fortunately, he grew up. Whether we grow up or not remains to be seen. From reading Hitchens' writing, it doesn't seem to me that he did.

[Darcy88]

Perhaps. Perhaps just a "gadfly" to use an excuse given for Hitchens' behavior.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm better than they are. That's not the case. These issues interest me because I am as liable to self-righteousness as anyone else.

Based on what I've read in this thread about Gandhi, it looks like he wasn't any better than any of us either in his early years. Fortunately, he grew up. Whether we grow up or not remains to be seen. From reading Hitchens' writing, it doesn't seem to me that he did.

Christianity held an iron-grip on Europe for over a thousand years. Intellectual freedom was stamped out on pain of death. Many burned. My ancestors were tormented with sermons of hell-fire. Today we have religious groups with fascist aspirations. Gays are considered abominations. Science is under attack in many parts of America. Kids to this day are subjected to hell-fire sermons. Mormon missionaries scour the globe telling tall tales to people and extracting from them 10 percent of their incomes and many years of their lives, not to mention their freedom of thought. The Catholic Church prohibits condom use in aids-stricken Africa, covers up cases of child molestation, ect. Corrupt Muslim leaders use the Koran to justify the killing of innocents and oppression of women. Shall I go on? And all of this on the basis of faith, in ignorance and defiance of the evidence. Religion is a fair target and Hitchens hit many a bullseye.

[YesNo]

Christianity held an iron-grip on Europe for over a thousand years. Intellectual freedom was stamped out on pain of death. Many burned. My ancestors were tormented with sermons of hell-fire. Today we have religious groups with fascist aspirations. Gays are considered abominations. Science is under attack in many parts of America. Kids to this day are subjected to hell-fire sermons. Mormon missionaries scour the globe telling tall tales to people and extracting from them 10 percent of their incomes and many years of their lives, not to mention their freedom of thought. The Catholic Church prohibits condom use in aids-stricken Africa, covers up cases of child molestation, ect. Corrupt Muslim leaders use the Koran to justify the killing of innocents and oppression of women. Shall I go on? And all of this on the basis of faith, in ignorance and defiance of the evidence. Religion is a fair target and Hitchens hit many a bullseye.

I think the only bulls eye Hitchens' hit was the cash register. He knew how to milk gullible undergrad and grad students. They paid their cash and he poisoned their spirits with self-righteousness.

When you take a break from playing God and passing out blame don't forget Cambodia between 1975 and 1979 because others won't: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-SI8RF6wDE

[JuniperWoolf]

As far as I'm concerned you could been trashing the tooth fairy and the criticism of self-righteousness would have been the same.

Ohhhhhh, so my arrogance is the result of my religious beliefs? Why can't it just be a facet of my personality? I hereby call you on religious stereotyping!

Seriously though, I think that you're excessively harping on the "self-righteousness" of atheists because you choose to engage in debates regarding religion yet you're unable to think of any good arguments with which to respond. Your bitterness has it's roots in your own feeling of inferiority. This is a forum which exists for debate - it's on you to come up with valid arguments, it's not on us to pull back.


That is not hard to prove. Have you read Hitchens' god is not Great: how religion poisons everything?

Uh huh. And how does his disgust for religion translate into "hatred" of religious people? How does criticizing an institution indicate that you wish harm? If we have to refrain from "hating" an organization simply because there are people in that organization who will get defensive then too bad. If I don't like a set of ideals (homophobia is a modern one that's impossible to deny) that are prescribed by the upper echelon of a powerful, old and rich institution then I'm not going to shut up about it until I want to. Not even snide, poorly-constructed comments about my supposed self-righteousness and youth, which seem to be the tools that you're working with, are going to shut my mouth for me.

What I'm trying to say is that your personal attacks mean less than nothing to me. If you want to debate, think harder about your position before you proceed.


I think the only bulls eye Hitchens' hit was the cash register. He knew how to milk gullible undergrad and grad students. They paid their cash and he poisoned their spirits with self-righteousness.

Yes, because only young people are atheists. Definitely none of the greatest thinkers in human history have disbelieved in God, it's only those scantily educated children who fall for such nonsense. Don't take a poll though! Don't do any research either. Make sure your claim is completely unsupported and BS to anyone willing to put five minutes of thought into it, that's the faithful way to do things.

[YesNo]

Happy New Year, JuniperWoolf. And thanks for your comments.

[KCurtis]

I think the only bulls eye Hitchens' hit was the cash register. He knew how to milk gullible undergrad and grad students. They paid their cash and he poisoned their spirits with self-righteousness.
]

This is simply not true. Hitchens had a much wider audience than undergrad and grad students. My husband is merely one of many his age (59) who were in that audience. While I disagree with some things he wrote, Hitchens had courage to write what he did. It is difficult where I live to divulge yourself as an athiest- but if someone asks, I will now answer honestly. If someone assumes I believe as they do, I will correct them, politely (I hope).

[Scheherazade]

May he rest in peace.

Seems like he is still creating as much stir as he did when he was alive.

Thank you all for participating.